On Thu, 12 Oct 1995 08:57:37 -0500 you wrote:
SJ>Ultimately, for me at least, PC is more in harmony with the
>interventionist God of the Bible. God is One who intervenes in human
>history at strategic points, therefore I assume He also intervened in
>biological history at strategic point.
BH>I think you have a non sequiter here. God intervenes in human
>history because it suits His purposes. If He can accomplish His
>purposes in biological history without intervening, then I presume He
>wouldn't.
Agreed. But no-one has demonstrated that God *could* "accomplish His
purposes in biological history without intervening". By analogy, God
has intervened in human history, so it is reasonable to assume that He
couldn't accomplish His purposes in human history without intervening.
BH>However, I disagree with your implication that TE implies God does
>not intervene. I am simply claiming that God's means of intervention
>(or more properly, as a Calvinist, I should say "governance" since to
>me intervention implies a change in plans) are not necessarily
>visible to humans.
Why does intervention imply "a change in plans"? Why could not God
have *planned* to intervene? Rev 13:8 says that Jesus was "the Lamb
that was slain from the creation of the world.". This indicates that
God *did* plan to intervene in human history.
SJ>If science cannot resolve the difference between TE and PC, then
>the decisive factor is theology and one's interpretation of the
>Biblical evidence.
BH>If science were static, that is if we could know that a particular
>discipline has gone as far as it can go and no further understanding is
>possible, then I'd agree with you totally. But there's no way of knowing
>whether additional investigation will yield additional knowledge, other
>than pursuing it.
Unfortunately you and I are not going to live forever (in this life
anyway!). We must make our hearts and minds up on what we do know
*now* . I am willing to stick my neck out and say that science will
not be able to resolve the difference between TE and PC, at least in
my lifetime (I am nearly 50 so that's in another 20-30 years! :-)),
so for me at least the decisive factor in closing between TE and PC is
my theology and my interpretation of the Biblical evidence.
There is one caveat on the above. IMHO it is possible, even likely,
that Darwinist macro-evolution will collapse of its own internal
contradictions, eg. Haldane's Dilemma, etc. Then the "E" in TE
would presumably collapse along with it?
BH>So it seems to me very unlikely that there will ever be a juncture
>in history -- prior to the Lord's return -- at which scientists in
>any field will be ready to use the Bible to resolve an ambiguity in
>the interpretation of physical evidence in their fields. They would
>rather continue investigating.
Perhaps when the Lord returns we will not need "scientists" (1Cor
13:12)? :-)
I can understand that 99.99%, even scientists who are Christians, will
not use the Bible of the time in resolve ambiguity in the
interpretation of physical evidence. This is because 99.9% of the time
science is concerned with questions of the ongoing operation of
physical laws and normal natural events.
But the issues that TE and PC differ on are the 0.01% of issues that
are to do with *origins*. In the case of *origins*, we are dealing
with unique, unobservable and unrepeatable events. Science, OTOH can
only deal with regular, observable and repeatable events. Where
science attempts to reconstruct the past it can only do so in terms of
inferring regular processes that operate now operated then.
It is precisely those areas that science cannot handle that the Bible
claims to speak. While I can understand unbelievers not being "ready
to use the Bible to resolve an ambiguity in the interpretation of
physical evidence" in issues concerning *origins*, I find it difficult
to understand it of *Christians* who are scientists. If Christians
who are scientists really believe the Bible is uniquely God's
revelation to man and that it speaks in the area of origins, why do
they not "use the Bible" to help "resolve ambiguity in the
interpretation of physical evidence" in the area of origins?
God bless.
Stephen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones | ,--_|\ | sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave | / Oz \ | sjones@odyssey.apana.org.au |
| Warwick 6024 |->*_,--\_/ | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Perth, Australia | v | phone +61 9 448 7439 |
----------------------------------------------------------------